Please help clarify my understanding of 30.06

[Scott Farkus]

This whole thing just goes to show you how backwards the State of Texas is when it comes to stupid things like enforcing compliance with 30.06 signage. If these people are going to be allowed to post fake signs--then law enforcement should be told not to take them seriously. Maybe the state should make these people/businesses apply (and pay a good amount of money) for a license to legally put the sign on their store window--just like we have to apply, get refresher training and pay to get/keep a license.

You made a similar post on another board. I don't understand what you think the State should do about private businesses posting "no guns" signs. The statutes we have now treat them in almost all, if not all, circumstances as meaningless. Whether a particular police officer knows this and enforces it properly is a different issue, but that's true for pretty much any law.

I prefer to think that the "no guns" businesses know the law and are taking advantage of it to appease anti-gun fanatics while knowingly allowing properly licensed CHL holders to carry in their business. Keep your mouth shut and they won't be forced to post a proper sign. But even if they did, it's a private business and they have every right to do so and shouldn't have to get a license for it.

Where I do think the State is falling down on the job is with the city/county owned places, like Austin City Hall as mentioned earlier, that post 30.06 signs. They can't bar CHL holders, period, except in limited specified circumstances and even then I believe the use of the 30.06 sign is inappropriate. I wish there was a way to file a complaint with DPS and have them investigate and force the city to comply with the law. I wish the law would be changed to require cities/counties to post a simple "COURT" sign on the outside of the building that houses a courtroom, or "GOVERNMENT MEETING" outside the door of a government meeting.

The law isn't perfect and there are some areas that need a bit of clean up, but by no means is Texas "backwards" on this issue. That's just preposterous.

[Katygunnut]

...the law is crystal clear and easily understood...the problem comes when either the CHO or the LEO or any officers of the court decide they want to "interpret" it rather than obey it...great pains were taken to word the law exactly as it is so that CHLs could carry in more places...to fear arrest when an unenforceable sign is posted is about as necessary as cowering before a purple stop sign...the law IS THE LAW...for our instruction AND PROTECTION...

Maybe my standards are a bit high, but I think that the power to deprive someone of their liberty (even temporarily) through arrest is a big deal and carries a high burden on those that we entrust with this power.

If a LEO arrests someone for an activity that is not against the law then I believe that the LEO should be suspended until they complete remedial training on the subject, and an appropriate notation should be reflected in their next performance review, etc. A second arrest for the same lawful activity should result in immediate termination, loss of pension, etc. At that point, the LEO is either untrainable or defiant of the law. Either way, they should no longer have the power to arrest people.

The current state where people (including many on this board) are afraid to engage to engage in clearly lawful behavior because they "don't want to be a test case" for uninformed LEOs is not reflective of any country that I want to live in.

[Oldgringo]

...the law is crystal clear and easily understood...the problem comes when either the CHO or the LEO or any officers of the court decide they want to "interpret" it rather than obey it...great pains were taken to word the law exactly as it is so that CHLs could carry in more places...to fear arrest when an unenforceable sign is posted is about as necessary as cowering before a purple stop sign...the law IS THE LAW...for our instruction AND PROTECTION...

Maybe my standards are a bit high, but I think that the power to deprive someone of their liberty (even temporarily) through arrest is a big deal and carries a high burden on those that we entrust with this power.

If a LEO arrests someone for an activity that is not against the law then I believe that the LEO should be suspended until they complete remedial training on the subject, and an appropriate notation should be reflected in their next performance review, etc. A second arrest for the same lawful activity should result in immediate termination, loss of pension, etc. At that point, the LEO is either untrainable or defiant of the law. Either way, they should no longer have the power to arrest people.

The current state where people (including many on this board) are afraid to engage to engage in clearly lawful behavior because they "don't want to be a test case" for uninformed LEOs is not reflective of any country that I want to live in.

So, when is your trial?

[Katygunnut]

...the law is crystal clear and easily understood...the problem comes when either the CHO or the LEO or any officers of the court decide they want to "interpret" it rather than obey it...great pains were taken to word the law exactly as it is so that CHLs could carry in more places...to fear arrest when an unenforceable sign is posted is about as necessary as cowering before a purple stop sign...the law IS THE LAW...for our instruction AND PROTECTION...

Maybe my standards are a bit high, but I think that the power to deprive someone of their liberty (even temporarily) through arrest is a big deal and carries a high burden on those that we entrust with this power.

If a LEO arrests someone for an activity that is not against the law then I believe that the LEO should be suspended until they complete remedial training on the subject, and an appropriate notation should be reflected in their next performance review, etc. A second arrest for the same lawful activity should result in immediate termination, loss of pension, etc. At that point, the LEO is either untrainable or defiant of the law. Either way, they should no longer have the power to arrest people.

The current state where people (including many on this board) are afraid to engage to engage in clearly lawful behavior because they "don't want to be a test case" for uninformed LEOs is not reflective of any country that I want to live in.

So, when is your trial?

No trial yet. I've done alot of really dangerous things like carrying past non-compliant signs, etc., but just haven't run across any LEO's that were sufficiently ignorant of the law to arrest me.

Personally, I think the whole "don't want to be a test case" thing is a bit overblown. I may change my mind if we start to see a rash of CHL holders arrested for things that aren't actually illegal.

[speedsix]

...I won't live under the "Chicken Little Syndrome, either"...I know the law, I obey the law carefully, if the sky hits me in the head, somebody's gonna be in trouble...and it most likely won't be me...

[Scott Farkus]

No trial yet. I've done alot of really dangerous things like carrying past non-compliant signs, etc., but just haven't run across any LEO's that were sufficiently ignorant of the law to arrest me.

Personally, I think the whole "don't want to be a test case" thing is a bit overblown. I may change my mind if we start to see a rash of CHL holders arrested for things that aren't actually illegal.

Well, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, at Austin City Hall, not only is there a posted 30.06 sign, they require you to pass through a metal detector and to run your bags through an x-ray machine in order to enter the building. There are almost always uniformed police officers milling about the lobby or just outside the building, because after all this is City Hall. This is not a matter of ignoring a non-compliant sign and going about your business with minimal chance of your properly concealed weapon being detected. Your firearm will be detected, you will in all likelihood be arrested immediately (probably in a most unpleasant manner) and it will probably make the 6:00 news.

If that happened to me, I would almost certainly lose my job, not to mention the countless amount of time and money it would take to defend myself, even if I ultimately came out victorious as I should. I have a family to support and I am not independently wealthy enough to risk that. Sorry if that disappoints you in some way, but you are welcome to walk into Austin City Hall with your concealed handgun any time you want and tell the rest of us whether or not the whole "don't want to be a test case" thing is overblown.

[Kythas]

I thought government meetings couldn't be posted 30.06.

Since no property which is owned or leased by a government entity can post an enforceable 30.06 sign, and governmental bodies either own or lease the space they are meeting in, then any 30.06 sign they may post would be unenforceable. Am I incorrect in this?

For example, the local city council meets in City Hall. City Hall does not have any court rooms in the building. The city may not enforce any 30.06 sign in City Hall. If the city council meets in a meeting room within City Hall, they would be unable to enforce any 30.06 sign they may post.

[sjfcontrol]

I thought government meetings couldn't be posted 30.06.

Since no property which is owned or leased by a government entity can post an enforceable 30.06 sign, and governmental bodies either own or lease the space they are meeting in, then any 30.06 sign they may post would be unenforceable. Am I incorrect in this?

For example, the local city council meets in City Hall. City Hall does not have any court rooms in the building. The city may not enforce any 30.06 sign in City Hall. If the city council meets in a meeting room within City Hall, they would be unable to enforce any 30.06 sign they may post.

Yes, you're incorrect. Government meetings are off limits, if posted. Most courts are in government buildings, too -- but are off limits. See PC46.035(c) making them off-limits, and (I) requiring 30.06 notification.

[croc870]

The exception to the 30.06 exception is that locationa listed in Ch 46 are still allowed to post. C of 46.035 allows the posting.